Why are Ghanaian politicians so wicked?

Late President John Evans Atta Mills

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

Folks, one major pitfall in our contemporary politics is that the Executive branch, as constructed under  the 1992 Constitution is too over-rated.

A major drawback of our constitutional democracy is the enormous powers vested in the President by the 1992 Constitution, especially concerning the appointment of public office holders.

The President is enjoined to appoint such office holders (sometimes on the advice of the Council of State and other times using his own discretion).

If we are complaining about laxity in our system, especially regarding negative tendencies such as cronyism and nepotism, we shouldn’t go far to know why.

If the Constitution invests the President with such enormous powers to put in office those he thinks can help him do his work, but we (the ordinary citizens whose mandate has put the President in office) have no means to restrain abuse of that concession, where is the guarantee that we are part of the process toward refining governance in the country?

Oftentimes, arguments have been raised that the sweeping powers given the President don’t help us run affairs properly. Already, some are complaining that President Mahama has appointed those of Northern Ghana extraction to numerous positions in his government, turning the system upside down and privileging nepotism.

The complaints used to be against Rawlings for privileging Ewes, and Kufuor for running a government of Asante cronies. Ex-President Mills was written off as effeminate or malleable and appointing people to positions of trust who eventually turned out to clip his wings. I have the Ahwoi brothers in mind.

Yes, and the President has enormous powers to that extent. It is assumed that once the President has his allies in positions of trust, they will dance to the tune that he calls. It is nothing new.

The Judiciary has come up for special mention in this regard. Some claim that the judges cannot rule against the one appointing them. Of course, they may have their reasons. Who appoints all these judges? Who determines their emoluments and conditions of service? Not the President?

Parliament may have an oversight responsibility, but in our situation where the winner-takes-all arrangement in general elections allows the party in government to control Parliament, rubber-stamping of anything from the Presidency (including the annual budget and fiscal statement) isn't strange. Parliament readily endorses all that the President does or forwards to it for ratification. Remember that the Constitution even provides that two-thirds of Ministerial appointments should come from Parliament. What a lousy way to rule a country?

Parliamentarians with an eye to juicy Ministerial appointments will always speak well of the Executive in order to catch the eyes of the President to be uplifted and given an appointment to join the Executive and eat both ways—from Parliament (as an MP) and the Executive (as a Minister/Deputy Minister).

How can we be so narrow-minded as not to know where we are pushing ourselves---into a tight corner to feed our politicians in more than one way and make it difficult for them to be loyal: how can they function in Parliament to challenge the Executive that they are an integral part of?

Our system of governance based on this constitution is useless; yet nobody is doing anything to help us solve the basic problems so we can “unshackle” ourselves and move on smoothly as other countries do.

Can we wonder why nobody is even revisiting the work of the Constitutional Review Commission whose recommendations ex-President Mills accepted piecemeal for implementation? What has become of the government's white paper on the recommendations that Mills accepted for implementation?

Why is it that nobody is any more interested in constitutional review? The hard fact is that even those pressing for the Transitional Provisions to be nullified so Rawlings could be brought to back have now abandoned that cause because they have reached a dead-end in their agitations.

The system seems to be so configured as not to cater to their demands; and what else should they do but recoil into their shells, where they faintly complain about the inadequacies of the system but won’t anymore play any frontline role in seeking reforms?

It is the usual Ghanaian thing. Yet, these elements can’t stop seething within with anger at what is happening in the country. They are chafing and biding their time in the vain hope that when the pendulum swings in their favour, they will unleash all the venom that they have been storing all these years.

Then, the cycle of do-me-I-do-you runs at full throttle to worsen our plight as a nation. It is painful to realize that Ghanaian politics can be reduced to this narrow scope of lousiness. Meantime, those who know how to outwit the system, live fat on the benefits while the majority of the people languish in want, squalor, and disease—all ending in a painful death!

Why are Ghanaian politicians so wicked?

FARMERS DESERVE BETTER                   

PNC General Secretary Mr Bernard Mornah

The annual ritual of National Farmers Day is here with us again and the PNC extends our utmost gratitude to the farmers of Ghana for keeping our nation alive with their hard work and sacrifices that has not only aided the nutritional needs of the population but also contributed to the economic life of the nation.

We congratulate all farmers for their fortitude, forbearance and for sustaining us all these years.

As we commend and celebrate our farmers for their great contribution to nation building, it is appropriate to review some of the actions that incapacitate our farmers and their ability to achieve more.

It is our view that farmers be availed adequate protection so that they are not out competed by cheap imports. We need to establish special markets that will purchase farmers produce so as to reduce the DEMAND and SUPPLY bottlenecks that confront the farmers. We have done so with cocoa farmers and we should do so forthose in the Shea, Groundnuts and grains. This would lead to expansion of the cash crop sector and avoid over reliance on cocoa.

Government must take bold steps to nib absolutely, the importation of rice and poultry products and incentivize domestic farmers with the huge amounts that go into such importation. Surely, such a measure will have multiplier effects of increased jobs, increased incomes, expansion of linkage businesses and retention and conservation of currency.

Our farmers have all the time fed us consequently; it is inadequate for the nation to declare just a day annually as public holiday for farmers. Rather as a show of solidarity, government and indeed all citizens must sacrifice a day’s salary/wages in a year to be put in a special fund dedicated as capital to young persons who desire to enter agriculture but lack the needed capital for their innovative ideas. We suggest that it should be called Agricultural Investment Fund (AIF). Additionally a percentage of the common fund should be earmarked for these purposes. This is the least we can do.

Once again, we salute the Farmers of Ghana.

Bernard Mornah

General Secretary

Mandela

By Finian Cunningham

One of the great political figures of modern times died; Nelson Mandela passed away at the age of 95 after several months of illness.

Known affectionately by the nickname “Madiba”, Mandela was a towering figure of personal and political strength; showing tremendous courage, humility, wisdom, compassion and shrewdness. 

Although toasted in his later life by world leaders, Mandela had a personal charm and affection for everyone. In the company of the famous and celebrities, he would often break away to greet those workers serving food or cleaning. 

For decades, his name, noble face and clenched fist served as an icon for human freedom. 
All over the world, people of all colors, drew inspiration from this black African figure in their struggle from oppression, from Northern Ireland to the United States of America, from Palestine to Iran, and many other locations for liberation. 

In his youth, during the 1950s, Mandela courageously challenged the system of minority white rule over his native black African people. 

The abomination of racist oppression by white European settlers in apartheid South Africa was attacked by Mandela and his comrades with violence.

 
That was a revolutionary concept - to equate the immoral “legalized” status quo with brute violence, and to justify overthrowing it likewise with violence. 

During the 1950s and for decades after, he was labeled “a terrorist” and he paid the price for his courage by enduring the humiliation and physical punishment of being jailed for most of his adult life in a racist white dungeon - the infamous Robben Island. 

Tellingly, when millions of ordinary people around the world were campaigning for Mandela’s freedom and that of his people, he was vilified by the American and British governments as a terrorist. 

The late British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was one of his detractors. And it was political and economic support from Western governments that enabled the racist apartheid regime to continue its existence for so long. 

It was only the boycott actions and solidarity campaigning of ordinary people around the world that led to the white South African regime’s demise. In much the same that they continue to do to end the apartheid Israeli regime. 

Mandela’s eventual release from prison after nearly 27 years behind bars signaled a historic shift and the apparent end of the South African apartheid regime in the mid-1990s. 

He later became the first black president of South Africa and “father of the nation”. 
However, there are some who will dismiss his iconic legacy as a “sellout” - an eventual collaborator with the apartheid structures of power in South Africa. 

It is true that two decades since the official collapse of the apartheid regime, the social oppression for the black majority in that country has hardly mitigated. 

The people may now be able to vote for a black political candidate and they may have nominal official equality. 

But poverty and discrimination are still rife in South Africa because the capitalist structures of power that had served elite white interests to oppress the black majority are still very much intact. 

These structures of oppression are still extant because Nelson Mandela did not in the end challenge them, according to his critics. 

Indeed, his release from prison back in 1994 could be interpreted as the tacit compromise demanded off Mandela by the white rulers. 

They knew that their vile game was up because of mounting international sanctions, and the white rulers were obliged to find a way of surviving. 

The survival of their class privileges and exploitation depended on making a compromise with their black opponents led by Mandela. 

That compromise was the superficial relinquishing of political power (the official end of apartheid) but in return Mandela would then steer the African National Congress (ANC) into accepting the capitalist economic system by which whites have dominated and continue to dominate South Africa. 

The ongoing social misery of South African blacks in teeming squalid townships like Soweto juxtaposed to luxurious mansions of whites in Johannesburg suggest that Mandela and his ANC comrades did indeed make a fatal compromise with their enemies. 

Another sign of the ambiguous legacy of Mandela is the way that surviving oppressors are seeking refuge and kudos in associating with his name. 

As news of his death was broadcast around the world, Western political figures were lining up to eulogize “the great man.” 

The spectacle of war criminals like US President Barack Obama and former British premier Tony Blair - both of whom are responsible for the killing of millions of people around the world through wars of aggression - making speeches about their “personal inspiration” from Nelson Mandela is truly sickening. 

The undoubted virtues of Nelson Mandela should not be associated with such odious figures and the system of oppression that they represent. 

But the seeking of refuge by oppressors in Mandela’s image is, nevertheless, a sign of ambiguity in the man’s legacy. 

NDC CAN’T FAIL

Leuf. Col Gbevlo Lartey, National Security Co-ordinator

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

Folks, I have no shred of doubt in my mind that when it comes to providing and sustaining national security, a government of the NDC cannot be faulted. History supports my claim. If you doubt it, go back down the memory lane to know what Jerry Rawlings did and passed on to his successors.

Those who mount rooftops to bad-mouth him cannot be bold to praise him for securing national interests. Had Rawlings not invested so much in national security, he couldn't have survived all those years he ruled under the PNDC before metamorphosing into a civilian President with the NDC under the Fourth Republic.

He secured the country and proved to his detractors that he knew the game better than they did. Ask yourself how many coup attempts his administration foiled and why even the "too-known" US subversive CIA activities flopped (Remember the Michael Soussoudis affair and all its entailments?).

If you are not sure, ask yourself why it was easy for the Rawlings administration to outsmart the NPP's now-senile J.H. Mensah and his “Nobistor Affair” (hiring a ship and loading it with sophisticated armaments to overthrow Rawlings only to be ditched).

Many, many other instances, including the foolhardiness of the Halidu Gyiwahs, Akata-Pores, and many others who misperceived the Ghanaian situation under Rawlings, attest to the efficacy of Rawlings' measures. He couldn't have ruled Ghana for nearly 20 years if he didn't handle the security situation properly.

He survived and passed on the baton to Kufuor who didn't take long to prove why it was so easy for the late Kutu Acheampong to overthrow the Busia administration without firing a single shot when he led a group of soldiers on guard duty at the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation to kick out the very Prime Minister who had appointed him to head the command post at the GBC because of rumours of an imminent coup d'etat. And those rumours were generated and circulated in government circles---and believed by the very people masterminding them!!

Truth be told, it will be far easier to overthrow an NPP government than it will be for an NDC government. Don't ask me why.

The days of military intervention in national politics are over, though; and the soldiers know it too; but we can't close our minds to precedents.

You see, when Kufuor began accusing Rawlings of planning to overthrow him (He said so at Offinso) and failed to substantiate his damning allegation, some of us understood why. It was just a throwback to what characterised the Busia administration: senseless paranoia!!

But no one need fear anything.

Ghana has continued to be stable because of the solid foundation laid by Rawlings. The Atta Mills government sustained that stability, which President Mahama is reinforcing. I am confident that the situation will continue to be so as the government tactfully outwits its detractors to put the national interest ahead of all other considerations.

That is why the shakeup involving the former National Security Adviser, Brigadier General Nunoo-Mensah (retired), and its implications (especially how political opponents are twisting and turning issues) come across to me as intriguing.

Of course, Gen Nunoo-Mensah's recent comments concerning workers' agitations might have nettled some, especially those who quickly condemned him and called for his dismissal. 

Now, the President has given him a new assignment as the head of Human Security Unit of the National Security Secretariat, which is really not clear to me, though. 

William Aboah has replaced him, and he is another good hand to rely on. Those who think otherwise should revise their notes.

As the change sinks, it is clear that those against Gen. Nunoo-Mensah have felt let down and are characterising his re-designation or re-assignment as a demotion. They may be seeking his total removal from the security apparatus but are disappointed; and rightly so!

Gen. Nunoo-Mensah himself is adamantly taunting his detractors and proving to them that even though he had worked with the Kufuor administration (apparently against the NDC), he is at home, doing assignments to secure Ghana's interests. Damn partisan political intrigues!!

President Mahama knows what he is about and will do all he can to sustain the legacy bequeathed to him in terms of securing Ghana's interests. Those who think they can slip through to cause any mess had better think twice---and deeply too---so they don't take any faulty step to be exposed and punished. History is on the side of an NDC government on this score!

I shall return…

E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com

Join me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor

The Veil: Emancipation and Liberation
By Tony Mckenna

Understanding the veil means looking at its historical context, as both symbol of oppression, and symbol of resistance .

The question of the face veil or the full body veil in the twenty-first century is a particularly vexed one. It is inexorably bound to issues of female emancipation but also to notions of religious and cultural identity more generally; notions which are in a state of historical flux and can attain multifarious political meanings therein. 

The Iranian state regime under Reza Shah, for instance, as part of a broader attempt to modernize, made the wearing of the veil illegal. Many women in Iran then took to wearing it anyway and suffered physical violence and state repression as a result. Their intransigence was not only designed to reassert traditional religious values however but also to register a protest at an enforced modernisation enacted from above by a ruler who had taken power in a British-sponsored coup. A ruler who had opened up the country, and Iranian oil in particular - to exploitation by foreign and especially British capital; the latter retaining a military presence in the south of the country for several years. At this point, therefore, along with traditional and more backward ideological elements, the veil became a focal point for a sharp set of radical anti-imperialist sensibilities also. 

A similar but more general tendency can be observed in the strata of students from Islamic countries in the Levant, North Africa and parts of western Asia. A surfeit of qualified students would often be unable to find positions in the higher echelons of the state and academic apparatus at home - or abroad where they tended to be monopolised by their western counterparts. Positions available to them in the large European universities were limited and marginal and this was sometimes supplemented by a corresponding ideological atmosphere which had come to emphasise western civilisation at the expense of eastern primitiveness. The wearing of the veil in such a context, even among more secular female university students, would often attain a symbolic resonance expressing pride in one’s origins and defiance in the face of an increasingly racialised wall of disdain.

In the case of out and out imperial conquest and war, the veil could become a potent symbol of resistance and a statement of freedom and independence as in the example of Algeria where it came to express unswerving resistance to French colonial rule. In other contexts, of course, the veil has acted as a symbol and expression of repression; specifically the repression of women by men, and the exclusion of women from the public sphere and the possibility of full self-determination. Iranian women, for instance, who had donned the veil in the twenties as a way to protest against the Shah, removed it now in order to protest against the more fundamentalist and sexist prescriptions of the Ayatollah Khomeini who, among other things, had made the covering of women compulsory. 

But perhaps the most interesting example is that of Russia post Bolshevik revolution.  In its youthful phase, the right to practise religion on the part of minorities was inscribed into the politics of the revolution providing, of course, it didn’t interfere with the secular framework which facilitated national and supra-national politics.  So, for instance, in 1917 an all-Russian Congress of Muslims was held in Moscow which involved 1,000 delegates, some 20 per cent of whom were women. Among other things this congress voted for equality of political rights for women including the end of polygamy and enforced separation between the sexes in the public sphere. Sharia courts also received funding in several central Asian countries with the proviso that these courts could not vitiate transnational statutes, like a woman’s right to divorce, which would be overseen by revolution committees.  Women could wear veils if they so wished. 

But Russia after the civil war had a devastated economy. The ability to provide the economic benefits necessary to undertake female emancipation in the political sphere like paid maternity leave, for instance was damaged, compounded as it had been by higher levels of underemployment more generally.  As a consequence, women found themselves more and more pushed back into the home and the form of the traditional family unit was increasingly revived. In the places where veiling had been a traditional practise in the past it came back into vogue, alongside a broader attack on many of the women's rights that had been so recently won.  In such a context, the fundamentalist rationale for the veil, of protecting the ‘modesty of the woman, and in the guise of such paternalism, restrict and separate her from the larger community by literally veiling her appearance in the public sphere, reasserted itself. But it is worth noting only because the concrete historical conditions had shifted denying women access to the work place, and the broader society thereby, at a foundational level.

At around the same time, the newly consolidated Stalinist regime in the guise of supporting women’s rights began a ruthless campaign against Islam; an assault (Hujum) which would culminate in the late 20s with various repressive measures including the ban of the veil in Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The Stalinist affirmation of women’s rights was a red herring; the true nature of the policy was to consolidate the power of empire very much in the Great Russian tradition of old and once more, the repression of nationalist identities transfigured the symbolic meaning of the veil; once again women began to wear it and were persecuted for doing so as a means to signify resistance and their right to self-determination under the looming shadow of empire. 

The Russian example and the Algerian one are hues of the same colour; an imperial power seeking to impose colonial control on a satellite state/s but articulating the act of conquest and domination in the language of liberation and women’s rights by reference to revolutionary tradition more broadly 1917 in the case of the Russians, 1789 in the case of the French.  In both cases the symbolic value of the veil becomes galvanized; it becomes a symbol of resistance and freedom albeit a paradoxical one in as much as the wearing of it could simultaneously enforce certain entrenched patriarchal-religious notions of the need for the separation of the sexes to the detriment of women.

 
From these specific examples of Russian and French colonialism we might extrapolate two facts. Firstly, the demand for the banning of the veil cannot be detached from the socio-historical context in which it is made. A recent survey suggests that 80% of Britons are in favour of the ban on full face veils, and in France it has already been brought into force but these phenomena should be understood in the broader context of the more than a decade long intensification of western military activity in the Middle-East and surrounding territories; the on-going attempt to impose imperial power to better secure access to and control over oil rich terrains.

The endeavour to ban the veil follows the logic of the colonialisms of yore; it is part and parcel of the ideological attempt to demonise the victims of imperial intervention as inherently primitive and sinister; to allow the murderous military force levelled against them to present as a justified and necessary measure in which bombs and bullets facilitate a flowering of civilisation.  Christopher Hitchens, for instance - one of the most eloquent proponents of such fatal logic - would describe modern day Afghanistan as a place which was easy to fall in love with because - as a result of western intervention bombing has blasted a society out of the Stone Age.

Secondly, the attempt to repress the veil tends to engender its opposite, allowing it to become a powerful symbol of national or ethnic identity and resistance. There will always be a clear ontological contradiction inherent in this type of prohibition. If someone wears the veil of their own volition - even if it has certain patriarchal connotations which are designed to emphasise female passivity and exclusion; tearing the veil from their face will not and cannot remove or annul those connotations. Freedom, by definition, is not something which can be imposed; it has to be struggled for and won through in the context of the life and active participation of the person who seeks it. 

Women who wear the veil and do so because they genuinely feel they do not fully belong in the public sphere alongside men shaping the economic and political destiny of their world – who feel they should linger in the sheltered safe environs of domestic life; these sensibilities can only be altered in and through the opening up of the labour market and the public sphere to women and their participation there in practise. One might note that for this reason the struggle of workers and the struggle for true women’s liberation will always, and of necessity, remain conjoined. It is above all, a struggle which must come from below for liberation can’t be handed down.